I've thought about what I've said a lot. You seem to be stuck on your absolutistic beliefs on how every word scientists say represent some kind of unquestionable truth when it comes to these theories. You don't bother to even accept that we currently do not actually know how life came into existence. Whether with the help of your God or not, there has been a chemical process for sure. There are theories about the conditions under which this is most likely to have happened, but there's not much solid evidence yet to support those theories completely. And obviously, regardless of the definition of 'life' problem as Fastlane more or less mentioned, they haven't succeeded in creating 'life' in a lab yet. Does this mean they won't ever be able to? Hell no. Also, I doubt you would agree that scientists would have created life as it happened back then anyways, as there's always the easy 'rebuttal' of 'that's how man made it, not how it came into existence "aux naturale"'

Lets say you are building a remote controlled aircraft and you've figured out what is required to make it fly (i.e. wings, propeller, engine, light material etc.) , but you can't figure out how to mold a propeller that will actually make it fly... creating life is sort of like that. We know a lot, we just don't know enough.

Also and this may surprise you, life's coming into existence is often looked upon as something that happened because the conditions were right, not as something that happened accidentally and spontaneously without an event of some kind that 'caused' it. If by 'happened all by itself' you mean, the conditions were right for life to come into existence, then yes that's exactly right.

There's no way of knowing (at least at the moment) if those conditions were set by God or by chance (which might have been a lot more inevitable than the word 'chance' suggests). I don't believe there exists anything like God, so it's an easy pick for me.